Public hearing on Osprey Point set Feb. 3

On Tuesday, Feb. 3, Sussex County Council will hold a public hearing on Osprey Point, a subdivision proposed on land that since the 1960s has been home to Old Landing Golf Course.

Property owners are fully entitled to develop their land, and well-planned development is necessary to ensure a thriving economy that keeps our region vibrant and strong.

At the same time, Sussex County has the most developer-friendly zoning of any county on Delmarva. Most of Sussex is agricultural/residential, AR-1, permitting two units per acre. To encourage superior design, Sussex also allows residential planned communities, where developers are allowed more units in exchange for more open space and superior design – exactly what has been requested for this development.

Townhouses and superior design are welcome, but this rezoning is also requesting 350 units, or about 100 units more than would otherwise be allowed. Attorneys for the developers may argue that other developments have already been approved along Old Landing Road, so it would be unfair to deny the property owner’s request.

By that thinking, county officials could be asked to approve planned communities everywhere in Sussex County until every remaining acre of land is developed – at a higher density than what is already the most developer-friendly density on the peninsula. This reasoning spells overdevelopment and a future of gridlock that we all know would eventually destroy the peace and tranquility we cherish.

In addition, the proposed Osprey Point lies on environmentally sensitive land that floods, not only during massive hurricanes, but also during nor’easters year in and year out. Even the developers’ spokesman admitted it is impossible to know whether planned stormwater management would alleviate flooding, which neighbors say spills over onto roads and nearby properties.

Let’s be clear. Property owners are entitled to develop, but they are in no way entitled to a zoning change or increased density.

Zoning changes clearly benefit property owners, but they should occur only when they also clearly benefit to the public.

This project does not meet that test.